While getting to truth may be very helpful, most models just simulate observed facts and effects, to see if it is useful and can be validated. The point is not

While getting to truth may be very helpful, most models just simulate observed facts and effects, to see if it is useful and can be validated. The point is not to predict, but to see how much variance different models can display, what one might learn from it and to evolve new models from that. What is comfortable or not shouldn't be a factor. In fact most climate scientists would search for any and all redeeming factors. It is concerning how insignificant they all seem to be. Major contrary findings would make great news, get prizes and grants. Timelines are indeed less useful and accurate, than levels of temperature and descriptions of accumulated and latent effects. Prediction is too hard and a sidetrack from all that is established peer-reviewed science so far.